Court says children not entitled to dead father's benefits

New York Times

May 21, 2012Updated: May 21, 2012 10:50pm

WASHINGTON — Children conceived with a dead father's frozen sperm are not entitled to Social Security benefits if they were not eligible to inherit property from him under state law, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday.

Express Newsletters

Get the latest news, sports and food features sent directly to your inbox.

The case concerned twins born to Karen Capato 18 months after the death of her husband, Robert, in 2002.

The Social Security Administration denied the twins survivors' benefits, a determination the Supreme Court endorsed.

The case turned on the interpretation of provisions of the Social Security Act.

“The technology that made the twins' conception and birth possible, it is safe to say, was not contemplated by Congress” in 1939 and 1965, when those provisions were enacted, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the court.

The law was designed, she wrote, “to benefit primarily those supported by the deceased wage earner in his or her lifetime.”

Its key provision, Ginsburg wrote, was one calling for the Social Security Administration to look to state laws concerning inheritance “in determining whether an applicant is the child” of the parent in question.

The Capatos lived in Florida, and Robert Capato's will was signed there.

Under Florida law, a child born after a parent's death can inherit property from the parent only if conceived during the parent's lifetime.

State laws take varying approaches to that question, meaning that whether such children are entitled to survivors' benefits under Social Security will also vary.

Congress remains free to adopt a different approach, Ginsburg concluded.

“Tragic circumstances — Robert Capato's death before he and his wife could raise a family — gave rise to this case,” she wrote. “But the law Congress enacted calls for resolution of Karen Capato's application for child's insurance benefits by reference to state intestacy law. We cannot replace that reference by creating a uniform federal rule the statute's text scarcely supports.”

The court also refused to hear an appeal of the $675,000 verdict against a Boston University student who illegally downloaded 30 songs and shared them on the Internet.

Joel Tenenbaum was sued by the Recording Industry Association of America for illegally sharing music on peer-to-peer networks.

In 2009, a jury ordered Tenenbaum to pay $675,000, or $22,500 for each song he illegally downloaded and shared.

A federal judge called that unconstitutionally excessive, but the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the penalty at the request of Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Warner Brothers Records Inc. and other record labels represented by the RIAA.